On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Warren Smith warren@gmail.com wrote:
I know Abd and some other don't like to think that Bucklin led to a
sharp reduction in second choice rankings, but it did.
That seems reasonable. In Bucklin, anyone who you rank is effectively
approved. In other ranked
Good Morning, Juho
re: I'd encourage maintaining some separation of the political
and business segments of the society.
How would you go about accomplishing that?
re: The triads and other low level approaches may do good job in
at least waking up some potential leaders. It is
Good Morning, Michael
re: Trust is only for compiling the voter list. If a few
neighbours extend their trust to you, they are vouching that
your on-line registration is honest - that you're a real
person, living at the specified street address. That's all.
If a site
--- On Sat, 28/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: I'd encourage maintaining some separation of the
political
and business segments of the
society..
How would you go about accomplishing that?
I think there are many options. One
could start for
Thanks Kristofer for you thoughtful comments.
Parties may still exist as groups of common interest
The first amendment states that they are allow to exist but they are also
allowed to PROMOTE their common interest. Allowing them to exist is not
enough. They must (under the first amendment)
I was perusing the rangevoting.org site (hi, Warren! :) ) after the
latest IRV argument, and I came across something I remembered vaguely
but thought was quite interesting, namely the
Clarke-Groves-Tideman-Tullock 'perfect' scheme for voting with money
(link here:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Michael Rouse mrou...@mrouse.com wrote:
It seemed like an interesting idea, but the drawbacks mentioned included the
possibility of non-payment and the problem of secrecy.
The main problem is actually that the chances of you actually having
to pay is extremely
